Subject:
|
Re: Scale (was Re: Dragonstar!)
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.space
|
Date:
|
Fri, 14 Feb 2003 17:53:45 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1514 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.space, Allister McLaren writes:
> In lugnet.space, Mike Petrucelli writes:
> >
> > > Of course the door is also 6 bricks high, and using a standard door height
> > > of 2100mm (7') you get a scale of about 1:37. This exagerated scale of 1:32
> > > horizontally and 1:37 vertically fits with the rather squat appearance of a
> > > minifig, but could possibly get confusing to work with, especially once SNOT
> > > building enters the equation, so for my own purposes I just use the 4 studs
> > > to the metre in both directions and accept a few anomalies. Of course by
> > > this scale, Dan's ship is even smaller.
> > >
> > > Thoughts? Reactions?
> >
> > Well if you assume minifigs are average human height you would get 3 studs to 1
> > meter. I think that is what most people go by.
> >
> > -Mike Petrucelli
>
> But the gist of my previous post is that if you translate that vertical
> measurement into the horizontal it's not quite right. For best accuracy, one
> must use and exxagerated scale (ie. vertical scale is different to
> horizontal scale) Besides, a minifig is about 3 studs wide. I don't think
> the average human is a metre wide.
>
> I'm merely suggesting folk try out using a 4 stud to the metre scale and see
> if it works better. I do know when I made a scale drawing of my house on
> Lego graph paper this scale worked out much better.
I personally use the 1 stud = 1 foot scale (or 3 studs = 1 meter). Sure, it
means that my minifigs (even the female ones) are built like linebackers,
but it's easy to convert. And I think that is the reason why so many people
use it, if they use a scale at all. A lot of times, I just build what looks
right without regard to a set scale.
Sure, you could go through the trouble to convert the height appropriately
using 1 brick = 6/5 studs, but that gets mathematically complicated when all
I want to do is build something cool. I just accept that a minifig takes up
3 studs by 6 studs laying down and when standing is 3 studs wide x 5 bricks
high. I leave the rest to selective compression.
> Allister
>
> PS. I've been a professional draftsman for 14 years, so I'm not exactly new
> to questions of scale.
Me too. 10 years professional, 4 years student.
> PPS just because everyone goes by it, it doesn't necessarily mean it's best.
> Especially when it's based on an inaccurate assumption, or at least one as
> open to debate as 'average human height', whereas a standard door opening is
> a fairly universal 1m x2.1m including jamb. This is something a bit more
> cencrete to work with.
Kind of like using US inches and the Metric system... Which one is easier to
use? I know which one is easier to use and which one I've been brainwashed
into using simply because "that's the way we've always done it."
> PPPS However, if you prefer the 1 stud to the foot scale, then by all means
> stick with it. I'm merely suggesting an alternative that I feel is more
> accurate. It is only one man's opinion, but I would at least hope folk would
> reflect on my logic before dismissing it.
I'm not trying to dismiss your logic. I just tend to feel that humans are a
lot like water - they both take the path of least resistance.
-Duane
PS
The "average" human male according to my data is 1.77m tall, .45m wide
(shoulder-to-shoulder) and .23m thick (chest-to-back)
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: Scale (was Re: Dragonstar!)
|
| (...) But the gist of my previous post is that if you translate that vertical measurement into the horizontal it's not quite right. For best accuracy, one must use and exxagerated scale (ie. vertical scale is different to horizontal scale) Besides, (...) (22 years ago, 14-Feb-03, to lugnet.space)
|
108 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
